Rooting Out Liberal Phonies

Hackett and Cheney

2006-02-19T15:00:00.000-08:00

I continue to be amazed at the audacity of the liberal media. I just got done Googling Hackett's name, and the only thing that comes up are obscure newspapers and websites, and they seem to dwell simply on the fact that Rush presumed that Sherrod Brown was a black person.

Contrast that with the continued efforts to keep the Cheney incident in the news. At the top of the Google news list, the usual supects, The Seattle Times, San Francisco Chronical, Boston Herald, Washington Post and all their ilk are tooting the war horn, trying to keep the shooting accident in the spot light under a cloud of intrique.

Looking at the same Google search methods for "Paul Hackett" and all I come up with is Cincinatti Enquirer, Kansas City Star, National Ledger, Concord Monitor...all carping about Rush's mistake. CNN.com's last entry noted Hackett's dropping out of the race on the 14th--that's it. Interesting that the big liberal media folks simply don't care to report about the Democratic party's eat-their-own politics.

The liberal media is simply showing their bias, once again, to anyone who has the vision to see it.

Poor Paul Hackett

2006-02-18T07:30:00.000-08:00

I've been watching with mixed curiosity the whole flap over Paul Hackett's withdrawal from the Ohio senetorial reace. Everything points to the strong-arming by Schumer, Reid, and others, of the Democrat-would-be Ohio senator. The Democrats are desparate to get another one of their own into the US Senate, and felt that Hackett was not centrist enough to be elected.

So, my question is, where is the intrigue and media investigation into this? After February 14th, there's been a paucity of coverage by the liberal press about the Democratic party's eat-their-young approach to politics. I can assure you that should this have been a Republican party story, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, et al, would have been sending out their minions to investigate the party's strong-arm tactics.

Of particular note to me, is that of the stories written about Hackett's political problems, most seem to dwell on the fact that Rush Limbaugh made a comment about the preferred candidate, Sherrod Brown, being black. Rush later corrected his observation by saying that he mistook Brown for someone else in the Democratic party--frankly a lame excuse (I personally think that Rush, hearing Sherrod Brown, assumed it was an African-American name). To be quite frank, as I was listening to the report, and heard Sherrod's name, I too, presumed that he was black. I think those of us who made that presumption could be forgiven, since it is not totally out of day-to-day experience--if someone were, for example, talk to me simply about a friend named LaKeneesha Washington, I would assume that person to be of African-American descent).

I'll be Googling this hapless fellow's name often, just to see where the coverage of this story is coming from. Right now, nothing from the liberal press, but it has gotten some legs from the conservative sources.

Another observation not yet pointed out...

2004-09-13T14:12:00.000-07:00

It is so painfully obvious these memos are modern-day fakes. Something that has been nagging at me for a while is in regards to the typing method. Back before computer type-setting, there was almost ALWAYS a double-space put in after a numbered or alphabetized item. Back then, it was standard practice to put TWO spaces at the beginning of each sentence after a period. Word processing paradigms have changed the standard, and only one space is required. The four CBS memos have NONE of these charactaristics about them (except for the modern one-space after each period).

The memos were done on Word, and on a personal computer. Neither would have been available to Col. Killian.

Where are the other memos?

2004-09-13T05:32:00.000-07:00

What was brought out on Fox and Friends this morning was an eloquent question. Where are the other memos written by Lt. Col. Killian? If this man used typed "memorandum for record," surely there are many others out there. Not one has, as yet, been published.

Given such a preponderance of the evidence suggesting that the four memos are faked, I suspect that none will ever be found.

Evidence of CBS' Phony Memos

2004-09-11T15:23:00.000-07:00

I am mystified why CBS seems so reluctant to admit they have been had by someone who gave them phony documents about George Bush's military record. It is so obvious that these so-called documents were created on a computer (there are many examples out there).

But one thing has not surfaced yet (that I can tell). If you download the memos from CBS's own website, then run them through Photoshop's Image->Adjustments->Levels, you will notice that all of these documents have the same odd grey-scale smudging. My contention is that whoever made these documents up, scrunched them up and photocopied them several times to give an old look to them.

The problem is that there are no creases for fold lines anywhere, and if they were always stored flat and pristine, why would they have these odd marks? I doubt that the marks come from a scanner or a fax machine..they have a 3D look to them that suggests that they were crumpled when copied.

As of Monday morning (September 13, 2004), no news show that I have seen has looked at this information.

Also...the dates are not military-style. August should have been abbreviated "Aug" and not spelled out. Anything written in that era would most likely not have used the full year...it would have just been 72 or 73.

Anybody else have some observations like mine (beyond all the obvious stuff carried on the news in the past few days).